|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The use of these number sequence(s), eg there are many others, will be to one's
own likings.
I was taught (in TA) roughly on 5,10,15,20,25,40,50,70,90,150,200(or 250)
(why start with 5, perhaps it is done so as there are 5 exchange working days/per week,
so calculations could be based on true exchange weeks)
but you can read this as well as 7,14,21,28,35,45,60,75,100,200
(why start with 7, perhaps it is done so as there are 7 days in a week, so calculations
could be made based on true calander weeks).
Myself, as to numbers for days in indicators, have found that you should test these
numbers first, and then apply the most appropiate.
A specific sequence would be to use our modern day Decimal system, why invent a wheel
that already has been invented, and as it is the most adopted system everywhere in the
very fast further maturing already grown-up Western Industrialised World, and is only left apart
in some religions and regions elsewhere, eg that aren't this far yet.
If the self-raised technicaly advanced Western World doesn't have the answers to technical
questions, then the answer will lie in the logic (for explanation).
The Decimal system uses the regular counts (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 etc) and also the
partial fractal counts (shortened version is 0,1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5 etc. up to 1 (1/1, a full unit)) and
perhaps also some other counts, that don't come to mind at the moment.
>From this the following sequence could be made (and by using someone's fantasy/imagination
plenty of others can then be made as well, eg like yours or like Hungarian Kubik's rectangle toy)
{the 0 is niks and therefore ommitted in further presentation}
0+1=1
1+1=2
(and 1+2=3)
1+1+2=4
(and 2+4=6)
1+1+2+4=8
(and 4+8=12)
1+1+2+4+8=16
(and 8+16=24)
1+1+2+4+8+16=32
(and 16+32=48)
1+1+2+4+8+16+32=64
(and 32+64=96)
1+1+2+4+8+16+32+64=128
(and 96+128=224)
1+1+2+4+8+16+32+64+128=256
etc. etc.
In the column on the left, each result can be didived by each of the first 2 (resulting) units
at the top(eg the pair).
In the column on the right, each result can be divided by the previous result unit, and the
results will be 2 (a pair).
Where are the in the above left-column results also to be found? and also for how long are they
providing everyone and every industry with good profitable results?
) *) **) ***) ****) *****) ******) *******)
)since minimum for whole factor is at least one(1, unit) (or alias "X" when unknown) is for something
*) since adding always requires a minimum of a "something" plus a "something", eg
for minimum "a pair" of figures is required (since multiplication start is done by at least
a pair of figures)
**) since energy by nature, eg electricity (like thunder), cannot occure without the pairs, eg
the contact touch between "+" and "-" (the plus and minus) being present
***) since each resulting figure is 2x (=also a pair !) the results of previous resulting figure
****) since the birth of computers (b+kb+Mb+Gb) answers the above question, maybe !..........................
*****) since the (old English) cash + wheight system was introduced, maybe !................
******) since the economic cycle lasts for 8 years (incl. the start year and the finish year), maybe !......
*******) since we also have 256 exchange workdays/per year, maybe !...............
********) since x and y, eg a pair, form a graphical display results of a pair of (different angled) figures, maybe !...
(ehh, since Adam & Eve were also a pair, maybe !................)
Regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicholas Kormanik <nkormanik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: zondag 11 juli 1999 1:50
Subject: Fibonacci spiral numbers
> Ton, Walter, and others,
>
> I have attempted to find a **sequence** of numbers in look-back periods to
> use in examining such things as CCI, etc., instead of only focusing on
> **one** number. Based on recommendations (perhaps from this e-mail list, or
> over on Silicon Investor), the following is the sequence I have thus far
> adopted:
>
> 5
> 8
> 13
> 21
> 34
> 55
> 89
> 144
>
> Does this particular sequence appear to make logical sense to you, or would
> you recommend amending it in some way?
>
> So far in my day to day experience with it, things seem okay --- though I
> have not as yet built a trading 'system.' What I'm mostly engaged with at
> this stage is taking the daily 'ocular survey,' and just monitoring one or
> two stocks using the above.
>
> Using a different sequence of numbers may be similar to altering the
> prescription of one's glasses for those ocular surveys, and thus it's useful
> to have the opinion of a trained 'optometrist.'
>
> Thanks,
> Nicholas
>
>
>
>
>
|